Linux in the past few years has been treated with a degree of
contempt by the commercial and business users, but is this really
fair? With the major vendors recognising the availability of
GNU/Linux and Open Source ability, it should be considered as the
solution to revolutionise the e-commerce and legacy world and excel
its reputation of reliability. Is Linux really the solution for the
commercial world, or has it been tied to the desktop for too long?
The latter of course was only a stepping stone in the plan.

Being fortunate enough to know the history of GNU/Linux and the
way it was back in the 1970s and 1980s, I think it is fair to say
that the whole concept for free distribution of an operating system
was not something readily accepted, due to the fact that any user
of a computerised solution were committed and contractually tied to
its hardware supplier and the operating system. As time has passed
the Darwinisation of the PC has become so popular it became part of
the household landscape, but the choice presented to a normal
amateur has been limited to MS Windows, secondly IBM OS/2 and a
last in the running, a revolutionary Linux, the latter being
treated and visualised as a hobby product until it really started
to take off. Later on in the early 1990s we saw not just an
evolution of operating systems, but the parallel, difficult
acceptance of a similar philosophy, that tended towards the
application and business solution arena. Unfortunately, treated in
the same vain as the operating system, the penetration of the
solution model struggled until recently.

Open-Source GNU/Linux generated a freedom, a gold rush in the
age of the dotbomb boom. Simple solutions with easily available and
reliable operating systems, packaged with firewall, administration
tools and development tools for the e-commerce world, was a start.
Indeed, an accepted, perfect, and cost-effective model had never
yet been seen until this era. Since the dotcom boom and dotcom
burst, there have been major players like telcos adopt the product
and philosophy as their preferred, most reliable and efficient
development base. What more recommendation is needed to prove the
point? Stories and tales keep appearing though, such as PDAs
running Linux, mobiles with Linux, Televisions in the digital age
based upon Linux, and much, much more. So why are the corporate
commercial operations so reluctant in adopting Linux as a
standard?

To answer the question is relatively simple; IT directors and
supporting management responsible for IT systems have not yet
realised the benefit of such a philosophy. After all, they do not
understand it, to them the risk of not knowing appears very high
and they do not know how to use the Open Source community to its
best. This article unfortunately has a limited scope and it is not
intended to cover every detail, but to understand a few basics, we
must first turn the model around and look at the fears that are
faced in the corporate mind and IT infrastructure.

Firstly, there is not one complete solution in place. Over the
years, a business would have introduced many solutions for
different issues or departments, and many of these systems to be
effective today need to be joined together. In some cases, this may
be more difficult than at first glance. Secondly, an organisation
has to maintain numerous service and support contracts with the
suppliers. A contract for hardware, a contract for support and a
contract for the application software, which, if a modification is
required, the work to be conducted may be quoted as days and
thousands of beans. Since most companies do not own application
source and if they did there would undoubtedly be a clause to
prevent alteration to it, the customer is limited to trust and rely
heavily upon the supplier for changes required, is that fair? If
the client or business is dissatisfied with the suppliers for what
ever reason, then changing providers can be difficult process,
proving costly, political unstable and disruptive to the whole
business, an undesirable by any sensible IT director, that values
his/her job. They are locked in.

Furthermore, a brave IT director, or because of circumstances
out of their control, may have to change suppliers. Once the
transition is complete, the cycle begins again. So how can Open
Source and FAM (Free Application Movement) differ and offer a
commercial success to all parties? Let's imagine that the client
can tender to one central location for an application that can
solve a particular business problem, such has settlement system for
a private client stockbroker in the financial sector. A supplier
responds with a close match product for an acceptable fee, the
deliverable meets all of the specified criteria at X beans, any
enhancements to basic model are required to satisfy localised
variations, this adds to the cost giving x+y. At a planned time the
system complete with source code is made live and in use by the
companies staff. Support for the operating system and the
application software is awarded to one or more providers, but at
this stage is not necessarily needed, except where a comfort factor
is needed, knowing that there is a source of expertise in the
unlikely event of a problem.

Whether or not the organisation signs up with a service company,
any changes to the operating system, or business application can be
presented to any other service provider or broadcast across the
community. Someone will pick up and resolve the requirement
according to the specification. The cost will be decided at the
outset and paid in full on delivery.

Choice of support is more important than first realised, as it
is something that has never been experienced before, yet always
longed for. When there is a problem, a directory of resource is
available that is capable of solving the issue. Any change
requirements or luxuries can be broadcast amongst the community
methods and cherry picked by an appropriate expert and turned
around speedily. A fee is paid.. Varying levels of service can be
arranged with various companies, but since the source resides with
the client company, they can call upon any successful and reputable
resource to satisfy their needs. The major benefit of the
Opensource and FAM model, is that there are no cumbersome license
agreements, so as a clients business grows, there are no extra
costs that need to be budgeted in. Astounded yet? Maybe not.

Since experts in this field were ahead of the integration and
open systems game, any disparate systems that a company may own,
will be able to be integrated in some shape or form. The diverse
expertise is out there and available through a single source.

If a conclusion has to be compiled, then freedom, ownership of
the source, no license fees, availability of skills and resource to
fix problems or to develop enhancements are all readily available.
The distribution of software to smaller companies or acquisitions
of the main business is freely available. Desires of a company
dictate, freedom, cost effectiveness, availability of resources, a
reliable and flexible solution that works well and retain any
office tools and integration with popular market products, services
or communication methods are key to the consideration of a business
solution. How close does the commercial supplier get to these
requirements?

As an example in the growing market of customer relationship
management (or eCRM), this methodology is ideal with the inclusion
and integration of 3G and 4G mobile, the proviso of applications;
the list is unlimited. So why is it not a perfect model for the
commercial world?

Habit and poor understanding is the cause of all issues related
to acceptance of the Opensource and FAM philosophies. It is also
ignorance and laziness that prevents the research and investigation
into such technologies for many businesses. Ironically, it is far
simpler to replace a system using Open Source with numerous
organisations that will guide any organisation through the process,
than it is to retain the large supplier that creates the locked-in
psyche.

The Open Source model will be freely accepted commercially and
one day there will be no preferred alternative, the time line for
globalized acceptance of such methods is certainly within the next
five years, so hold on to your hats and do not get left behind. It
is your choice and a free one.